Morris v. Crow, 95-3306
| Decision Date | 21 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-3306,95-3306 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 247 Cynthia MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence W. CROW, Jr., as the Sheriff of Polk County, Florida and individually, Don McDaniel, Under-Sheriff of Polk County, Florida and individually, Paul F. Alley, individually and in his official capacity as Colonel of the Polk County Sheriff's Office, Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Judith J. Flanders, Robert L. Trohn, Christine M. Casingal, Donald G. Jacobsen, Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand, Lakeland, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.
Jonathan L. Alpert, William S. Josey, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Chris A. Barker, William J. Cook, Albert, Josey & Hughes, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
Sheriff Lawrence W. Crow and Undersheriff Don McDaniel appeal from a judgment entered against them in their individual and official capacities, following a jury trial, in this First Amendment case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The dispositive issue in the case is whether the speech for which Cynthia Morris was allegedly disciplined is sufficiently protected by the First Amendment to prohibit her employer from taking action in response to it. We hold that, taking the manner, time, place, and context of Morris' speech into account, her interest in engaging in that speech is outweighed by her employer's interest in promoting the efficient administration of the Polk County Sheriff's Office. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the defendants. 1
In 1977, Morris began working for the Polk County Sheriff's Office. At that time, Louie Mims was sheriff. Morris was initially hired as a clerk and typist, but she later became a deputy, and still later was promoted to detective. In November 1992, Morris was transferred to patrol duty, and then to the Corrections Department. That transfer to the Corrections Department gave rise to this lawsuit, in which Morris alleged that the transfer was in response to her exercise of her First Amendment right to endorse former sheriff Mims in the 1992 elections, instead of Crow, the current sheriff. 2
The evidence at trial demonstrated that, in general, Morris performed her duties adequately and received good evaluations, though her work history with the Sheriff's Office was not problem-free. Morris' husband, whom she met on the job, also worked at the Sheriff's Office at one time. Eventually for reasons unrelated to this case, Sheriff Crow fired Morris' husband. That occurred several months before the 1992 elections, and Morris does not contend that her husband's firing was related in any way to his or her support of Sheriff Crow's opponent.
At trial, testimony was presented to the effect that, after her husband's termination, Morris complained bitterly, loudly, and often. For instance, Major Grady Judd, one of Morris' superior officers, testified that Morris made comments to him that were more or less as follows: One of Morris' colleagues in the Sheriff's Office, Officer Michael Schreiber, testified that Morris became very loud and upset when he inquired how her husband was doing, and that she responded loudly, Morris' coworkers testified that during tirades such as these, Morris did not comment about her support of former Sheriff Mims, but simply disparaged Crow's administration and his decision to terminate her husband.
On the morning of election day in 1992, Morris reported to work. Her husband, apparently still unemployed, reported to a polling precinct to campaign for former sheriff Mims. After Morris reported to work, she informed her supervisor that she was going to visit her husband during her lunch break. On that day, several Sheriff's Office employees had taken the day off to campaign for Sheriff Crow, and were traveling in a motor home from precinct to precinct. Those employees arrived at the same polling place where Morris' husband was working, before Morris herself got there.
At trial, slightly different versions were presented of the precise sequence and details of the events that took place after Morris arrived at the polling place, but the gist of the various accounts is the same. Based on that testimony, it appears that Morris was dressed in plain clothes when she arrived, and that she drove a small unmarked white Buick which, though it belonged to the Sheriff's Department, had no external flashing lights. Nevertheless, several witnesses testified that they believed Morris was on duty, because she was driving a Department vehicle. Morris testified that she announced loudly to the group that she was on her lunch hour. In any event, things heated up at the polling place after Morris got there.
When Morris arrived, she immediately noticed that her husband was not holding his Mims sign and waving at passersby. Instead, he was chatting with some of his former coworkers from the Sheriff's Department. This did not sit well with Morris. According to the trial testimony, Morris "jumped" out of the car and screamed at her husband to "Get his ass out next to the street and hold the sign properly and wave and smile." Apparently, Morris thought her husband needed a sign-waving lesson, because she then picked up the sign and yelled, "I'll show you the fucking way how to hold this motherfucking sign to campaign." Morris then began to wave at passersby, while holding the sign. After the demonstration, Morris' husband took the sign back. During this demonstration, Captain Mac Hall (one of Morris' supervisors) was standing and watching nearby. According to Captain Hall, Morris then "turned to me and pointed her finger at me, and told me that she was on her fucking lunch hour and she had a right to vote and this is the way she was doing it," and "[t]hen she proceeded to still yell and scream and told me that if Sheriff Crow had not fired her husband, that he would be holding a fucking Crow sign also."
Although Morris admitted that she used profanity at the polling place and in Captain Hall's presence, she testified that she did "not direct it right to him" and did not intend to show him any disrespect. However, all of the other witnesses to the incident testified that she had addressed Captain Hall in a disrespectful, shocking, hostile, embarrassing, and insubordinate manner. Lieutenant William Isbell described the situation as follows:
Q. Can you describe for the jury what her appearance was, what her demeanor and attitude was out in the general public that day?
A. I would call it a grandstand. I would call it creating a spectacle. Anyone who was not familiar with the situation would certainly have interpreted this as being very derogatory and it certainly would have caught their attention.
Q. Did her demeanor and attitude appear hostile to you?
A. In general it appeared hostile.
Q. Did it appear unprofessional?
A. Very definitely.
Q. Did it appear disrespectful toward her--one of her superiors, Captain Hall?
A. Not only disrespectful to Hall, disrespectful to the sergeant and myself and everyone who was there that was associated with the sheriff's office. Everyone, I believe, was embarrassed.
Q. Can you tell us--did you observe Captain Hall's reaction to this onslaught of words she was using?
A. He appeared to be embarrassed. The decision was made very soon that we would move on, that we would go elsewhere rather than remain and be subjected to this.
Q. And can you tell the jury what your reaction was as a lieutenant with the Polk County Sheriff's Office observing one of the employees acting like this in public?
A. Plain and simply, I was very embarrassed.
Lieutenant Anna Kestner's testimony was similar:
Q. Describe the conversation with Mac Hall. Where were they standing. How did it go?
A. Basically, they were standing on the right-of-way at the driveway leading into this church which was a polling location. Just after you get off of the right-of-way, you go into what's the parking area which is, as I recall, it was a grassy area where everybody parked to go in.
....
Cindy Morris and Captain Mac Hall began to have a conversation. And at that time point, I moved further away from them a little more down the road. I was probably, approximately, 20 feet away from them. I don't know what their conversation was about as I walked off.
....
Q. Did you hear Captain Hall say anything?
A. No. Basically, I don't recall any conversation from him. And like I said, as I was first there it appeared like it was just conversation. And then as I walked away to hold my sign up, I noticed that suddenly Cindy's voice got louder and louder and escalated.
So then I turned around to look at what was going on, and at that point basically she was screaming at Captain Hall, you know, in a real loud voice that it was the sheriff's department's fault because she had to take a loan because she had to pay her fucking bills. And if the sheriff's department hadn't fired her husband that she wouldn't be in this problem. And that's why she had to come out and support Louie Mims for sheriff because maybe she could get a better fucking deal that way.
And those are not quotes as I tell them to you, that's how I remember the gist of what was said. And I do recall that the word fuck was interlaced throughout the conversation repeatedly during that time.
I also could tell that it had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riley v. Camp, 94-9118
...it is not an absolute right: Under certain circumstances, it must yield to the state's compelling interests. See, e.g., Morris v. Crow, 117 F.3d 449, 456 (11th Cir.1997) (explaining the balancing test established by the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct......
-
Newell v. Runnels
...therefore, may be pierced when it intrudes into "the content of [an employee's] expression of political beliefs." See Morris v. Crow, 117 F.3d 449, 456 (11th Cir.1997) (italics added) (quoting Terry, 866 F.2d at 377). Stated plainly, the mere fact that an employee engaged in campaign activi......
-
Kostic v. Tex. A & M Univ. at Commerce, 3:10–cv–2265–M–BN.
...performance of the speaker's duties or interferes with the regular operation of the [public employer's] enterprise.’ ” Morris v. Crow, 117 F.3d 449, 457 (11th Cir.1997) (quoting Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 388, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987) ). In this case, the summary judgme......
-
Hartwell v. City of Montgomery, al
...spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. at 1958; Vila, 484 F.3d at 1339. See also Morris v. Crow, 117 F.3d 449, 457 (11th Cir.1997) ("The court must discern whether the employee spoke on behalf of the public as a citizen, or whether the employee spoke for herse......
-
Travers v. Jones: Is "fact Preclusion" a Death Knell for Section 1983 Employment Claims Against Local Governments by Civil Service Employees?
...Cir. 2002). 343. 533 U.S. 194(2001). 344. 248F.3d 1117, 1122 (11th Cir. 2001). 345. Travers, 323 F.3d at 1295. 346. Id. at 1295-96. 347. 117 F.3d 449, 458 (11th Cir. 1997). 348. 248F.3dat 1125. 349. Travers, 323 F.3d at 1296. 350. Id. at 1295. 2005] travers v. jones 665 the case turn on whe......
-
You Tweeted What? Navigating First Amendment Concerns in the Public School Setting
...at 241.43. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 572.44. Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388.45. Id.46. See, e.g., Belyeu, 998 F. 2d at 929-30.47. Morris v. Crow, 117 F. 3d 449, 458 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Jackson v. State of Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 405 F. 3d 1276, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 2005).48. Bryson v. City ......